Hey debate friends. In an effort to provide some education and help to debaters looking for it, I'm starting a weekly logic case study on this sub. I'll pick an argument or statement that I commonly hear in debate rounds, or something that is particularly memorable, and do an in depth break down of it. If you find this useful, comment and upvote, so I know to keep doing it. Otherwise, I'll probably just stop. Also, feel free to provide suggestions for break downs as well as feedback if you think this is helpful or not.

My hope is that this helps some of the debaters looking for assistance learn how to think about arguments and develop skills in breaking down logic.

I'm starting with a simple one today, a sort of straw man, but I'm doing it because I hear it a lot.

Today's argument/statement: "My value is morality because the resolution specifies the word "ought," and ought implies moral obligation."

When you hear an argument, it's important to be able to break it down to its premises and conclusions, and as you do this more, you'll get better at doing it at round speed. So let's do that. Here's what this argument is saying.

Premise 1: The word ought implies moral obligation.

Premise 2: If a word in the resolution implies moral obligation, the value should be morality.

Conclusion: The value should be morality.

So now that we've done that, we need to assess the statement for its validity and soundness. Validity means that the argument is structured so that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and the premises are also true. When you're constructing an argument, remember that it's your job to prove that your claims (premises) are true. You will need to warrant each one unless it's an a priori accepted truth.

Is the argument valid? Yes. If both the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow. There's no way around that.

Is the argument sound? No. Let's talk about why not.

First, the word ought doesn't necessarily imply moral obligation. For example, if someone tells you that you ought to by shares of Netflix on the stock market, that is not a comment on a moral obligation. That is a comment on financial reasons for making a decision. Therefore, we know the word ought doesn't always imply moral obligation.

Second, just because the resolution implies moral obligation, it doesn't mean the value should automatically be morality. This is simply an unwarranted claim. Why can the value not be something else like moral progress? Or Justice? There are different aspects of morality that are important in evaluating our moral obligations. Additionally, if the agent of action is a government, it's even debatable if governments can have morality to begin with. In that case, maybe governmental legitimacy is more suitable.

So we see that the two premises of the argument don't really hold true. You can point these things ought in cross examination, and you can use these points in rebuttal. There are other ways to approach this, but this is an evaluation of the fundamental logic.

I hope this helps someone out there!

Additional Notes

This type of argument, two premises that lead to a conclusion, is known as a syllogism.

I'm ignoring the fact here that morality isn't defined, although that is also a valid criticism of the statement.